Japan Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant blog
Tracking Fukushima news from day 1 : | Now one of the world's largest Public Available Repositories of the Chronology of the Daiichi Nuclear ongoing Disaster.
This entire site and content is 100% copyright (for commercial replication), please use the form to submit application for re-use. This site is 100% Educational and all licences in relation to reporting are attended to.

IPPNW is the Nobel Peace Prize winning global federation of doctors
working for “a healthier, safer and more peaceful world.” The group has
adopted a highly critical view of nuclear power because as it says, “A
world without nuclear weapons will only be possible if we also phase out
nuclear energy.”UNSCEAR,
the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation, published its deeply flawed report April 2. Its accompanying
press release summed up its findings this way: “No discernible changes
in future cancer rates and hereditary diseases are expected due to
exposure to radiation as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident.”
The word “discernable” is a crucial disclaimer here.

Cancer, and the inexorable increase in cancer cases in Japan and
around the world, is mostly caused by toxic pollution, including
radiation exposure according to the National Cancer Institute.[1]
But distinguishing a particular cancer case as having been caused by
Fukushima rather than by other toxins, or combination of them, may be
impossible – leading to UNSCEAR’s deceptive summation. As the IPPNW
report says, “A cancer does not carry a label of origin…”

UNSCEAR’s use of the phrase “are expected” is also heavily nuanced.
The increase in childhood leukemia cases near Germany’s operating
nuclear reactors, compared to elsewhere, was not “expected,” but was
proved in 1997. The findings, along with Chernobyl’s lingering
consequences, led to the country’s federally mandated reactor phase-out.
The plummeting of official childhood mortality rates around five US
nuclear reactors after they were shut down was also “unexpected,” but shown by Joe Mangano and the Project on Radiation and Human Health.

The International Physicians’ analysis is severely critical of
UNSCEAR’s current report which echoes its 2013 Fukushima review and
press release that said, “It is unlikely to be able to attribute any
health effects in the future among the general public and the vast
majority of workers.”

“No justification for optimistic presumptions”
The IPPNW’s report says flatly, “Publications and current research
give no justification for such apparently optimistic presumptions.”
UNSCEAR, the physicians complain, “draws mainly on data from the nuclear
industry’s publications rather than from independent sources and omits
or misinterprets crucial aspects of radiation exposure”, and “does not
reveal the true extent of the consequences” of the disaster. As a
result, the doctors say the UN report is “over-optimistic and
misleading.” The UN’s “systematic underestimations and questionable
interpretations,” the physicians warn, “will be used by the nuclear
industry to downplay the expected health effects of the catastrophe” and
will likely but mistakenly be considered by public authorities as
reliable and scientifically sound. Dozens of independent experts report
that radiation attributable health effects are highly likely.

Points of agreement: Fukushima is worse than reported and worsening still
Before detailing the multiple inaccuracies in the UNSCEAR report, the
doctors list four major points of agreement. First, UNSCEAR improved on
the World Health Organization’s health assessment of the disaster’s
on-going radioactive contamination. UNSCEAR also professionally “rejects
the use of a threshold for radiation effects of 100 mSv
[millisieverts], used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the
past.” Like most health physicists, both groups agree that there is no
radiation dose so small that it can’t cause negative health effects.
There are exposures allowed by governments, but none of them are safe.

Second, the UN and the physicians agree that areas of Japan that
were not evacuated were seriously contaminated with iodine-132,
iodine-131 and tellurium-132, the worst reported instance being Iwaki
City which had 52 times the annual absorbed dose to infants’ thyroid
than from natural background radiation. UNSCEAR also admitted that
“people all over Japan” were affected by radioactive fallout (not just
in Fukushima Prefecture) through contact with airborne or ingested
radioactive materials. And while the UNSCEAR acknowledged that
“contaminated rice, beef, seafood, milk, milk powder, green tea,
vegetables, fruits and tap water were found all over mainland Japan”, it
neglected “estimating doses for Tokyo … which also received a
significant fallout both on March 15 and 21, 2011.”

Third, UNSCEAR agrees that the nuclear industry’s and the
government’s estimates of the total radioactive contamination of the
Pacific Ocean are “far too low.” Still, the IPPNW reports shows,
UNSCEAR’s use of totally unreliable assumptions results in a grossly
understated final estimate. For example, the UN report ignores all
radioactive discharges to the ocean after April 30, 2011, even though
roughly 300 tons of highly contaminated water has been pouring into the
Pacific every day for 3-and-1/2 years, about 346,500 tons in the first
38 months.

Fourth, the Fukushima catastrophe is understood by both groups as an
ongoing disaster, not the singular event portrayed by industry and
commercial media. UNSCEAR even warns that ongoing radioactive pollution
of the Pacific “may warrant further follow-up of exposures in the coming
years,” and “further releases could not be excluded in the future,”
from forests and fields during rainy and typhoon seasons – when winds spread long-lived radioactive particles – a and from waste management plans that now include incineration.

As the global doctors say, in their unhappy agreement with UNSCAR,
“In the long run, this may lead to an increase in internal exposure in
the general population through radioactive isotopes from ground water
supplies and the food chain.”

1. The total amount of radioactivity released by the disaster was
underestimated by UNSCEAR and its estimate was based on disreputable
sources of information. UNSCEAR ignored 3.5 years of nonstop emissions
of radioactive materials “that continue unabated,” and only dealt with
releases during the first weeks of the disaster. UNSCEAR relied on a
study by the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) which, the IPPNW
points out, “was severely criticized by the Fukushima Nuclear Accident
Independent Investigation Commission … for its collusion with the
nuclear industry.” The independent Norwegian Institute for Air
Research’s estimate of cesium-137 released (available to UNSCEAR) was
four times higher than the JAEA/UNSCEAR figure (37 PBq instead of 9
PBq). Even Tokyo Electric Power Co. itself estimated that iodine-131
releases were over four times higher than what JAEA/UNSCEAR) reported
(500 PBq vs. 120 BPq). The UNSCEAR inexplicably chose to ignore large
releases of strontium isotopes and 24 other radionuclides when
estimating radiation doses to the public. (A PBq or petabecquerel is a
quadrillion or 1015 Becquerels. Put another way, a PBq equals 27,000 curies, and one curie makes 37 billion atomic disintegrations per second.)

2. Internal radiation taken up with food and drink “significantly
influences the total radiation dose an individual is exposed to,” the
doctors note, and their critique warns pointedly, “UNSCEAR uses as its
one and only source, the still unpublished database of the International
Atomic Energy Association and the Food and Agriculture Organization.
The IAEA was founded … to ‘accelerate and enlarge the contribution of
atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world.’ It
therefore has a profound conflict of interest.” Food sample data from
the IAEA should not be relied on, “as it discredits the assessment of
internal radiation doses and makes the findings vulnerable to claims of
manipulation.” As with its radiation release estimates, IAEA/UNSCEAR
ignored the presence of strontium in food and water. Internal radiation
dose estimates made by the Japanese Ministry for Science and Technology
were 20, 40 and even 60 times higher than the highest numbers used in
the IAEA/UNSCEAR reports.

3. To gauge radiation doses endured by over 24,000 workers on site at
Fukushima, UNSCEAR relied solely on figures from Tokyo Electric Power
Co., the severely compromised owners of the destroyed reactors. The
IPPNW report dismisses all the conclusions drawn from Tepco, saying,
“There is no meaningful control or oversight of the nuclear industry in
Japan and data from Tepco has in the past frequently been found to be
tampered with and falsified.”

4. The UNSCEAR report disregards current scientific fieldwork on
actual radiation effects on plant and animal populations. Peer reviewed
ecological and genetic studies from Chernobyl and Fukushima find
evidence that low dose radiation exposures cause, the doctors point out,
“genetic damage such as increased mutation rates, as well as
developmental abnormalities, cataracts, tumors, smaller brain sizes in
birds and mammals and further injuries to populations, biological
communities and ecosystems.” Ignoring these studies, IPPNW says “gives
[UNSCEAR] the appearance of bias or lack of rigor.”

5. The special vulnerability of the embryo and fetus to radiation was
completely discounted by the UNSCEAR, the physicians note. UNSCEAR
shockingly said that doses to the fetus or breast-fed infants “would
have been similar to those of other age groups,” a claim that, the IPPNW
says, “goes against basic principles of neonatal physiology and
radiobiology.” By dismissing the differences between an unborn and an
infant, the UNSCEAR “underestimates the health risks of this
particularly vulnerable population.” The doctors quote a 2010 report
from American Family Physician that, “in utero exposure can be
teratogenic, carcinogenic or mutagenic.”
6. Non-cancerous diseases associated with radiation doses — such as
cardiovascular diseases, endocrinological and gastrointestinal
disorders, infertility, genetic mutations in offspring and miscarriages —
have been documented in medical journals, but ate totally dismissed by
the UNSCEAR. The physicians remind us that large epidemiological studies
have shown undeniable associations of low dose ionizing radiation to
non-cancer health effects and “have not been scientifically challenged.”

7. The UNSCEAR report downplays the health impact of low-doses of
radiation by misleadingly comparing radioactive fallout to “annual
background exposure.” The IPPNW scolds the UNSCEAR saying it is, “not
scientific to argue that natural background radiation is safe or that
excess radiation from nuclear fallout that stays within the dose range
of natural background radiation is harmless.” In particular, ingested or
inhaled radioactive materials, “deliver their radioactive dose directly
and continuously to the surrounding tissue” — in the thyroid, bone or
muscles, etc. — “and therefore pose a much larger danger to internal
organs than external background radiation.”

8. Although UNSCEAR’s April 2 Press Release and Executive Summary
give the direct and mistaken impression that there will be no radiation
health effects from Fukushima, the report itself states that the
Committee “does not rule out the possibility of future excess cases or
disregard the suffering associated…” Indeed, UNSCEAR admits to
“incomplete knowledge about the release rates of radionuclides over time
and the weather conditions during the releases.” UNSCEAR concedes that
“there were insufficient measurements of gamma dose rate…” and that,
“relatively few measurements of foodstuff were made in the first
months.” IPPNW warns that these glaring uncertainties completely negate
the level of certainty implied in UNSCEAR’s Exec. Summary.

9. UNSCEAR often praises the protective measures taken by Japanese
authorities, but the IPPNW finds it “odd that a scientific body like
UNSCEAR would turn a blind eye to the many grave mistakes of the
Japanese disaster management…” The central government was slow to inform
local governments and “failed to convey the severity of the accident,”
according to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation
Commission. “Crisis management ‘did not function correctly,’ the
Commission said, and its failure to distribute stable iodine, “caused
thousands of children to become irradiated with iodine-131,” IPPNW
reports.

10. The UNSCEAR report lists “collective” radiation doses “but does
not explain the expected cancer cases that would result from these
doses.” This long chapter of IPPNW’s report can’t be summarized easily.
The doctors offer conservative estimates, “keeping in mind that these
most probably represent underestimations for the reasons listed above.”
The IPPNW estimates that 4,300 to 16,800 excess cases of cancer due to
the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan in the coming decades. Cancer deaths
will range between 2,400 and 9,100. UNSCEAR may call these numbers
insignificant, the doctors archly point out, but individual cancers are
debilitating and terrifying and they “represent preventable and man-made
diseases” and fatalities.

IPPNW concludes that Fukushima’s radiation disaster is “far from
over”: the destroyed reactors are still unstable; radioactive liquids
and gases continuously leak from the complex wreckage; melted fuel and
used fuel in quake-damaged cooling pools hold enormous quantities of
radioactivity “and are highly vulnerable to further earthquakes,
tsunamis, typhoons and human error.” Catastrophic releases of
radioactivity “could occur at any time and eliminating this risk will
take many decades.”
IPPNW finally recommends urgent actions that governments should take,
because the UNSCEAR report, “does not adhere to scientific standards of
neutrality,” “represents a systematic underestimation,” “conjures up an
illusion of scientific certainty that obscures the true impact of the
nuclear catastrophe on health and the environment,” and its conclusion
is phrased “in such a way that would most likely be misunderstood by
most people…”

John LaForge works for Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog and anti-war group in Wisconsin, and edits its Quarterly.